Lake Erie - Michigan Side Closure April & May - Update

[Gofish1111]

Update from Mike Veine:

I just attended and spoke at the DNR Commission meeting yesterday in Lansing where the proposed, new Lake Erie walleye regulations were discussed. Even though it was brought out that Canada will likely not honor their end of the bargain by reducing their catch as agreed to next year, it still appears that the Commission has already made up their minds and will go ahead with the spring walleye season closure in Michigan. It has also been reported that Ohio may not implement any stricter walleye rules than that had last season. This will
leave Michigan, alone, the one jurisdiction that will be taking a hit. New, 2003 hatch information was conveniently omitted from the DNR proposal. It was however presented to the commission, (not by the MI-DNR but through an Ohio-DNR press release that I presented) that the 2003 walleye hatch surveys showed the largest walleye recruitment year since the mid-80s. In fact, when an MI-DNR biologist was questioned about the 2003 hatch by one of the commissioners, he
changed the subject and never did answer his question. I spoke with Bob Garner and he told me, while looking me in the eye, that the commission only received two letters opposing the May/April closer. Now I know for a fact that I sent one a couple weeks ago and my wife sent one back in August prior to her speaking at the Aug. Those were the only letter bob Garner acknowledged receiving. Now I know of at least a few other letters that opposed the closure that were
sent to the DNR commission, but for some reason, they were not acknowledged. How many of you sent letters of opposition? I was the only person that spoke at the meeting that opposed the April closure, which only accounts for less than one-percent of Michigan's total walleye catch from Erie. Because I feel that it is now a done-deal, I am already making plans to move my Spring Lake Erie trips to Ohio. That is really a senseless shame having to give up Michigan's
world class spring trophy walleye fishery due to political fisheries management. It is my opinion that before Proposal G was enacted, when these types of decisions were made by the legislature, Michigan's sportsmen were far better off.

Mike Veine
mikeveine@trophyspecialists.com

[FrankT]

I haven't sent a letter but I have e-mailed twice now. Here's the response from the MDNR followed by my original e-mail:

Dear Frank,

Thank you for expressing your concerns over the upcoming changes to
Michigan's walleye regulations. I'd like to assure you that the MDNR is committed to ensuring all citizens have an opportunity to express such thoughts when it comes to the management of our State's outstanding resources.

I also want to be clear that the Lake Erie walleye population has been more than slightly hurt by failed recruitment in recent years, and while nobody is proposing that the declining population of walleye in Lake Erie is the sole responsibility of the sport harvest, something must be done to protect this fishery now. We are fortunate in that we have more than 30 years of outstanding sampling and scientific review of this population and that all shoreline jurisdictions (Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York and Ontario) remain committed to managing for the viability of this population regardless of how hard that may be. Each of those jurisdictions, along with Michigan, is making equally difficult changes to their own regulations to protect the future of this world class fishery. How each jurisdiction goes about reducing their harvest quotas will depend mostly on how the individual fisheries behave or operate. There simply is no "one size fits all" solution to this problem. Each jurisdiction will be held accountable for meeting their commitment to the Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries and the Joint
Strategic Plan for Management of Great Lakes Fisheries, international
agreements that Michigan is signatory to.

We realize that many anglers feel strongly about this issue and that is why we continue to work through the public review process that is in place and why we continue to want to hear from citizens like you.
People are passionate on both sides of this subject. In an attempt to be responsive to all voices we have tried to balance the changes that must be made with the social concerns of the public. Currently, there are two biologically equivalent options for reaching our 40% reduction that address different social concerns. One includes the spring closure and a higher daily bag limit for the entire fishing season. The other opens a significant portion of the spring fishery to fishing, but reduces the daily bag limit to four fish for the entire season. Both are grounded in good science and place the long-term viability of the resource first, which is where we must always start and end. After all, we must protect the rights of both current and future generations to enjoy this wonderful resource.

Thank you for contacting us with your concerns. I have included some
additional bulleted points on the issue for you below. If you have any further questions please feel free to contact me at (517)241-3623.

Sincerely,

Kurt R. Newman Ph.D.
MDNR - Fisheries Division
Lake Erie Basin Coordinator

Highlights of the Proposed Walleye Regulation Changes:

1. Lake Erie's walleye population is managed via an international
agreement (The Joint Strategic Plan for Management of Great Lakes
Fisheries) with the four states (Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New
York) and one Canadian Province (Ontario) which border the shores of
Lake Erie.

2. Fisheries agencies from these jurisdictions form the Lake Erie
Committee (LEC) and cooperate to annually assess walleye populations and use the most modern fishery science available to manage LE fisheries.

3. Annual harvests are governed by a quota system - where each
jurisdiction can harvest a portion of the available walleye based on how much surface area of walleye habitat lies within their respective
jurisdictional waters and how much of the population is determined to be surplus and available for safe harvest.

4. Strong scientific evidence has established an alarming loss of
annual recruitment to, and depletion of the Lake Erie walleye stocks
from a high in 1988. Furthermore, recruitment in 4 of the past 5 years has been well below average.

5. All of the above jurisdictions have taken significant steps to cut
their walleye harvest within their respective jurisdictional waters in 2004 as directed by the LEC.

6. MDNR drafted a plan to restrict its harvest on Lake Erie in
accordance with the recommended levels proposed by the Lake Erie
Committee.

7. Michigan's plan calls for a combination of regulation adjustments so as to achieve the recommended 40% cut in harvest without being too
restrictive in any one area.

8. Option A recommends a 15-inch MSL, a 5-fish daily bag limit, and a
closed harvest season from April 1st to May 31st on Lake Erie.

9. Option B recommends a 15-inch MSL, a 4-fish daily bag limit, and a
closed harvest season from April 1st to the first Saturday in May on
Lake Erie.

10. Both Options include being responsive to public concerns raised
over protecting the Detroit River walleye and recommend an increase from a 13-inch to 15-inch MSL and a reduction in the daily bag limit from 6-fish to 5-fish on the Detroit River.


Kurt R. Newman, Ph.D.
Lake Erie Basin Coordinator
Fisheries Division
Michigan Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 30446
Lansing, MI 48909
office (517)241-3623
FAX (517)373-0381

>>> "Frank" <fturski@totalink.net> 09/11/03 09:42PM >>>
>It is my understanding that the Michigan DNR is considering changing
>the rules for walleye fishing in Lake Erie so that:
>-the minimum size is increased to 15 inches
>-the limit is reduced to 5
>-the season is closed from April 1 to the end of May
>
>It is also my understanding that this is the result of an agreement
>between Michigan, Ohio and Ontario to reduce the catch by 40% and >that the 40% reduction is due to very poor hatches in 2001 and >2002. There have also been recent articles in the media that the >netting surveys performed this year indicate that the 2003 hatch >was very good.
>
>I agree with the need to protect the fishery and as such agree with >the size increase and the limit reduction. However I do not >understand the closure in April and May. It would seem that the >2001 and 2002 year class could be better protected if there were a >size limit that would be high enough to exclude the 2000 through >2003 year classes and a reduced limit (ie, 2 or 3). Since most >Michigan Lake Erie walleye fishermen also buy Ohio licenses, by >completely closing the season you will increase the number of >people that go to Ohio to fish and the end result will be that more >of the fish you are trying to protect will get caught.
>
>Please let me know what you think of this.

[dmmoore]

I think it is a great idea. I understand that ohio and canada has agreed to it. This should have been done years ago. Let the fish spawn, There ar plenty of time to catch the fish. Douglas

[Tom (mich)]

Doug, it COULD be a great idea, but please don't miss the point of the closure. The closure has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with protecting the spawn. If it had, then the river systems would have been closed as well. The stated objective of the commission was to reduce the walleye harvest by 40% - that's it, end of story. The objective never was to protect the spawning population. In the end, this is all about pure math, with a goal to harvest 40% fewer fish without regard to age class, spawning, etc.

I could go along with just about anything that had some science behind it, but this closure fails miserably in that regard. Consider this - Erie will be closed in April/May, and the Detroit River will remain open. By and large, the bulk of the Detroit River fish are Erie fish. Is the MDNR so naive as to think that those who ordinarily would have fished Michigan waters of Erie in April/May, will now simply stay home because of the closure????? Heck no - they're now going to go to the Detroit River, or they'll drive to Ohio and launch and fish there (and spend $$). Also consider that most of the time, the weather conditions are more conducive to fishing the Detroit River or the Ohio reefs, rather than Michigan waters of Erie. In fact, I'll opine that the overall walleye harvest will INCREASE because of this closure, simply because guys will target the easier river fish, or travel to Ohio where there is little indication that they'll fall into place with these regulations.

I'm no math major, but if the objective (senseless as it is) was to reduce the harvest by 40%, why didn't they simply reduce the bag limit by a like amount???? And yes, I did write a letter so that's at least three. I really would have preferred a combination of a reduced bag limit and slot limit - at least I could have pretended there was some science behind that.

[FrankT]

The last that I have heard Ohio is going to reduce their limit to three in March and April and to 5 the rest of the year. I have also heard that they are going to put a size limit on the walleyes (They currently have no size limit). I understand that they are also going to restrict Sandusky Bay to the same rules as the Maumee River.

The vast majority (close to 90%)of the walleyes spawn on the reefs in Ohio, another 10% spawn in the Maumee and Sandusky in Ohio. Almost no walleyes spawn in the Michigan waters of Lake Erie. My conclusion is that this closure does almost nothing to protect spawning walleyes.